Hot Takes & Cold Wars

This article details the recent controversy generated after Donald Trump suggested that republicans should “nationalize” voting. While participating in an interview with the former deputy director of the FBI, Dan Bongino, reiterated his claims of undocumented immigrant voter fraud and encouraged republicans to assume control of voting in 15 unspecified states. To reconcile these claims, Trump described the existence of “crooked” states, and noted he would allow states to administer elections as long as they did it “honestly”.

Trump’s claims of voter fraud have persisted without substantial evidence to back them. Despite this, the Trump administration has sought to gain more federal control over elections through executive orders, gerrymandering, and state voter registrations. Karoline Leavitt, clarified that Trump’s remarks were in reference to the SAVE Act. Mike Johnson described Trump’s remarks as stemming from frustration over election integrity, and explained there were real concerns in “blue states”. John Thune, the Senate Majority Leader, voiced his opposition to Trump’s idea to federalize elections, but supports implementing voter ID requirements.

It’s not surprising to see specific rhetoric from this administration about blue states, and while Trump may not have named these 15 states as of yet, Oregon would likely make his list. They are trying to frame potential federal intervention as a necessity rather than intergovernmental pressure toward political opponents. I have even more issues with the SAVE act, which is a thinly veiled mechanism to restrict electoral participation in democratic-leaning demographics. And yes, I would rather eat my own left leg than be forced to vote in-person. Although voter fraud is a rare occurrence, it's commonly used to justify measures that create more stringent voter requirements. Policies of this nature disproportionately affect voting populations that are low-income, elderly, and people of color.

I don’t believe that election nationalization would be beneficial for U.S. elections. Centralized control increases the likeness of political interference, and partisan polarization. Similarly, voting measures that require proof of citizenship and in-person voting do not substantially improve security in elections. The rates of voter fraud in the United States are already so miniscule, these proposals prevent a variety of voters from political participation.

American-Backed Coups details the United States impressive, prolific, and century-long career of toppling foreign governments. The methodology is established with three criteria: the coup must have been successful, documented involvement of at least one U.S official, and U.S. participation must be irrefragable, rather than speculated. The video's chronology starts in Hawaii, 1893, which resulted in Queen Liliʻuokalani defenestration. This event was able to demonstrate that American foreign policy, and American commercial interests are indistinguishable. The successive entries showcase a similar pattern of U.S led coups, acting as a strategic instrument of hegemonic control.

The use of liberation rhetoric is quite significant across my media choices, which is unsurprising, given the U.S. government's striking affinity for this specific ideological scaffolding. We are reliably present whenever liberation needs to occur. Consider yourself liberated; from Spain; from tyranny; from the ideological pestilence that is Marxist thought; from the strategically disruptive custom of self-governing. This framing isn’t genuine; it is just the option that works the best for our PR team. Liberation and anticommunism converge naturally, operating as ideological synonyms during certain periods. If the specter of communism was rumored to be haunting any foreign governments, you now have a justificatory solvent; you can fully justify installing an authoritarian leader! Any underlying commercial interests, banana monopolies, or oil nationalizations need not be mentioned; the red scare justifies it on its own. Economic interests usually operate beneath the differing ideological justification that is being used, as seen with Puerto Rico, Iran, and Guatemala.

Another theme, which is slightly ironic given the origins of this country, empire-building, expansionism. Though we were opposed to imperial rule when the British were doing it to us, we obviously feel differently when that power is in our hands. Our conquests usually offer us strategic or economic advantages. Puerto Rico had a very exploitable sugar market; allowed us a foothold in the region, ensuring naval presence. The Philippines had plenty of resources for us to extract and allowed us to expand our power in the Pacific.

Coups are not surprising; there is no revelation; this isn’t some obscure piece of knowledge. The manufactured pretexts; ideological justifications; commercial interests; the gang’s all here! The indifference, normalcy, and continuity are aspects I find to be particularly challenging. So rarely we see the human cost factored into these operational plans.

The Philippines had spent years in active resistance, fighting for their independence from Spain; we excluded them from their own liberation. The war with the U.S. that followed, resulted in over 200,000 civilian casualties. In Puerto Rico, we devalued their currency, restricted trade, attempted to force linguistic conformity, and suppressed their independence movements. The Supreme Court, through their usual juridical creativity, devised a framework for unincorporated territories; constitutional rights were deemed conditional because our imperial interests take priority over universal rights, obviously. This was applied to Puerto Rico as well. Although they are considered U.S. citizens, live under our federal laws, they are not included in the electoral college due to being an unincorporated territory. This arrangement has yet to be revised, it has failed to create enough notable institutional discomfort to reconsider.

Hawaiʻi faced similar oppression after haole colonization. With a law passing in 1896 that functionally prohibited the use of ‘Ōlelo Hawai‘i in the education system. Opposition to U.S. annexation was not marginal, it was vastly supported and ignored by pro-annexation supporters who used joint resolution as a loophole. As with other sites of U.S. intervention, Mexico mirrors the pattern: moral architecture, strategic interest, and complete erasure of the rights of existing populations. Political rights were restricted; property rights ignored; forced removal.

If imperialism is the evolutionary endpoint of capitalism, the U.S. skipped all tutorials, side quests, and went directly to the final boss fight. Which is why we should suspend the civic mythology that luck and democratic ideals secured American hegemony. The United States status as a global superpower was secured through our consistent inclination to exercise power beyond our borders. This was done through regime changes, land annexation, and the strategic replacement of inconvenient leaders. Interventionism was foundational in driving the expansion, it has been the engine of the empire.

There’s a repeating pattern. Hawaiʻi sovereignty eroded by economic ambitions; Mexico partitioned in the name of manifest destiny. Latin America has long been burdened by the U.S. imperial agenda: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, it becomes tiring trying to list them all. Though no official decree exists, history shows that any attempt to nationalize American assets will be viewed as a capital offense. Anything that we perceive as a threat to our geopolitical dominance, or our economic interests will be removed, replaced, or annexed if important enough. There is a foundational absurdity in the debate of intervention versus isolation, the U.S. has devoted the better part of the last century, embargoing entire nations, drone-striking its way through the globe, overthrowing governments and installing puppet leaders, meaning any restraint or withdrawal from our current system would be laughable. I feel inclined to argue for reluctant interventionism.

The most compelling, and normative defense for interventionism is the social case. The United States, given that we are a global superpower, must be uniquely responsible, or morally obliged to advance democracy, provide aid, and guard human rights. Many administrations have invoked this moral lexicon, and it is not without substance. There have been instances where American intervention has provided tangible aid, forestalled atrocities, but the application of these principles have been selectively deployed.

The political rationale for interventionism, I have always found to be fundamentally disingenuous. The Domino Theory has been used to justify whatever interventions we can imagine, it was used to justify the Vietnam war, and plenty of coups. And I would argue that the best way to counter anti-American sentiments would require the U.S. to stop terrorizing different countries to further its goals. Sadly, it is too late for that, we are far too entangled to retreat from this intervention apparatus; disengaging could threaten national security.

Economic rationale is the most transparent, and consistent. Having control of trade routes; maintaining access to energy, oil and other rare mineral resources; expanding trade markets and protecting our capital investments. American economic isolation would be disruptive; our economy has become deeply intertwined with the global supply chains.

Although I am being forced to choose, as it is the basis of this assignment, it does feel as if I am supporting the Empire and trying to rationalize the need for the Death Star. I am not attempting to make the case that interventionism is always good, our history often shows that it is quite flawed; instead, I am making the point that we’ve built a trap and cannot escape it. Interventionism has played a key role in the United States becoming a global superpower. Though, I would suggest future interventions not view other nations like chess pieces in our imperial game.

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (1983) serves as the epic conclusion of the original Star Wars series. The film's lead, Luke Skywalker, returns to his home planet of Tatooine to rescue his friend, and rejoins with the Rebel Alliance for their last campaign against the Empire. Luke Skywalker works as the transformational leader within this film; through inspirational vision, moral conviction, challenging assumptions and individualized consideration.

Luke does not try to redeem Darth Vader through rewards or authority. Luke tells Vader, “It is the name of your true self. You've only forgotten. I know there is good in you. The Emperor hasn't driven it from you fully,” seeing beyond Vader’s Sith identity; challenging the status quo; encouraging him to reconsider his path. Luke is challenging Darth Vader to question his identity, to think past it. He believes in the inherent good in his father and compelling him to reclaim it. Shortly after Luke requests, “Search your feelings, father. You can't do this. I feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate,” he is attempting to appeal to his fathers identity and his autonomy, invoking him to restore his agency.

Later, in front of Vader and the Emperor, Luke declares, "Never! I'll never turn to the dark side. You've failed, Your Highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me.” This statement reflects Luke’s idealized influence and inspirational motivation. Luke acts as an ethical exemplar; refusing to abandon his values; rejecting the offer from the Emperor. Luke is embodying the values, the ones he wants his father to reclaim.

One of the most important lessons this film presents is belief in redemption and hope. Luke is willing to risk his life for his belief that there is good in his father. If Luke had abandoned this hope, Vader would not have been redeemed, the rebellion would have failed, and the Emperor would have remained in power. Perseverance acts as another lesson, characters in this film are often at a disadvantage, but still offering an improbable resistance. They endure, and persist despite it all. Last is collaboration, unity, and cooperation. Despite the initial issues between them, the Ewoks and the Rebels come together against a common adversary, leveraging each other's capabilities and knowledge to achieve what they couldn't alone.